State-owned media in a country such as this will always be problematic. Given the peculiarities of our political situation, achieving something akin to the BBC will inevitably present a major challenge, and it is no surprise, therefore, that neither NCN nor the Guyana Chronicle (allowing for the fact that the BBC is only a broadcaster) has ever come anywhere near the penumbra of the ideal.
The problem started with Prime Minister (subsequently President) Forbes Burnham who sought to bring all media under his control after 1968, although both the Mirror and the Catholic Standard together with some sheets associated with political parties managed to evade his grasp albeit in much diminished format. He was the one who inaugurated the radio monopoly; television was not a factor at that early stage. It was his successor, President Desmond Hoyte, who created a more liberal climate where the private media were concerned ‒ Stabroek News began in 1986 ‒ although the Guyana Chronicle, radio and a TV station remained under government sway, and continued to function as a kind of state propaganda arm.
The present Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo had written eloquently of the need for free media in PNC days, but when he became Minister of Information under the new PPP/C government in 1992, nothing much changed where the state media were concerned. In fact, for the 23 years the PPP/C were in government, despite any impression conveyed to the contrary before entering office, they maintained a stranglehold on the state media, and in particular retained the monopoly on the radio.
There was a litany of complaints from the then opposition over the years about the discriminatory practices of the state media, more especially the lack of access. The situation was exacerbated at election times when the heavily skewed line in favour of the then government distorted the political playing field. In addition, before leaving office in 2011, then President Jagdeo controversially issued radio and TV licences to friends and supporters of the PPP/C.
Prior to coming into office the coalition had promised a change in the approach to the media in general. Among other things, in its column in this newspaper a year ago it had said: “The state-owned media will operate independently of government.” It had also undertaken that there would not be impediments to access of the state media. Contrary to what was promised, however, there is no evidence that this administration, any more than the last one, has managed to make a break with the Burnham tradition of control.
The matter was drawn to attention recently in the US State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2015 under the heading ‘Censorship or Content Restrictions,’ which referred to the Prime Minister issuing a directive that all headlines in the state-owned print media were to be “scrutinized and approved by his office first.”
The government has been quick to respond, denying allegations of state media censorship. In the words of the Department of Public Information, “Such claims are wholly false and baseless and attempt to damage the image of the coalition government which is trying to repair democratic institutions, including state media which had been left in a shambolic state under the previous administration”.
Yesterday, however, we reported on a letter sent by the Guyana Press Association to President Granger on April 13 complaining about interference at various levels in the work of the state media. Minister of Information and Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Director of Public Information Imran Khan were named as prominent in this regard, although ministers were also cited as having interfered. One particular allegation about the Prime Minister hosting a weekly meeting at which directives are given to the state media regarding content is certainly in need of a specific response from Mr Nagamootoo.
The problem from the government’s point of view is that the Chronicle in particular – it lacks the more ephemeral character of NCN – is on view for anyone to peruse at their leisure, and whatever the administration says, it would not be described by a rational commentator as a fully ‘independent’ paper in any meaningful sense of that term. Furthermore, the government has given the criticisms undeniable credence as a consequence of statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Presidency.
As we reported last August, Mr Nagamootoo had told reporters at the Public Buildings that he was “surprised and disappointed” by a headline which appeared in the state newspaper. He had spoken with the reporter who had written the article, it was said, and subsequently was quoted as commenting that the Chronicle “is a government paper and I would expect that… it has a point of view that supports a government perspective…”
As for Minister Joseph Harmon, he was subsequently reported as saying that government was working on a policy to ensure responsible reporting by the state media. The policy was under consideration, he said, but was not yet completed. He went on to say, “It is important that we establish clearly that there is a responsibility which the media has to ensure that news is put to the Guyanese public and the public at large, the international community at large, that is responsible.”
Inevitably, these kinds of remarks do not make the media in general feel altogether comfortable. Under the last government, PPP General Secretary Clement Rohee had talked about an enforceable media code, clearly in his case with those members of the private media which were critical of the government in mind. But what was Minister Harmon talking about, given that in this context the words ‘code’ and ‘policy’ are interchangeable? The PPP/C had full control of the state media, PNC style, and had no need to inflict a code on them, and at the moment as well, as said above, the state media do not appear to have made a total break with the well-worn PNC and PPP tradition.
What kind of special policy to ensure responsible reporting would the state media require that is different from the general guidelines which apply to all media and which are very well known? And a code on reporting in any case is premature unless a decision has been taken in the first instance as to what the general policy towards the state media is to be, and at a more fundamental level, the rationale for government retaining them at all. If it is that the government indeed intends to keep the state media and, as they promised before coming into office, ensure their independence, then a media code is the last thing they need. What would be required are truly strong, independent editors who can draw the line with ministers and even prime ministers and can be insulated from improper pressure; and boards which do not involve themselves in content and cannot dictate editorial decisions.
The government has said that it is committed “…to the free media that provides for national coverage that is not driven by partisan politics. For the first time in many years, state media have been carrying articles and reports critical of the government while providing extensive positive coverage to the opposition.” Unfortunately, a few articles and reports critical of the government and some coverage of the opposition, do not spell independence.
The government needs in the first instance to make its case for having media at all – which is not the same thing as retaining GINA, which operates under entirely different rules and has a separate function from the state media. If it can persuade the public they are still necessary, then it should be looking at creating a framework which would allow for true independence.
